Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?

The horse is out of the barn.  Oracle has submitted a signed software grant to
the ASF.  Once the process completes, that code becomes available under the
Apache License 2.0, a *permissive*, attribution-based license.  Oracle cannot
now impose additional copyleft restrictions by adding a new license to the

Suppose that theoretically, Oracle were to declare tomorrow that in addition
to the ALv2, the OOo codebase would now also be available under the GPL.  That
action would not prevent the formation of the new Incubator podling at the ASF,
because it could be done under the terms of the signed ALv2 software grant.

Once you've granted a permissive license, you can't take it back.

Disclaimer: I participate in ASF projects, but I'm speaking as just some guy
on the internet trying to help everybody out.

Marvin Humphrey

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.